Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

In general, people have to take a hazing at the certification lab before realizing something that "just works" is just not good enough.

There are a lot of different processes for manufacturing electronics, different DFM strategies, and choosing the right path is often a trade secret.

Usually made Jr staff read the NASA workmanship standards manual, cables and harnesses guide, and the tin whisker paper. Additionally, they would be expected to get their RF/ham technician license within the year, and practice coding test/boot-loader jigs in C/C++ in their assignments.

There is also a tacit discussion about Metrology that lasts on average 3 months if you are smart...

Book looks funny (AI slop?), as volume manufacturing is a different skill-set requiring designing to both a standard and factory capabilities. =3



> There is also a tacit discussion about Metrology that lasts on average 3 months if you are smart...

Man, EEs usually have zero clue about metrology. I worked on a big piece of T&M gear for a while. The looks I got when I said "so, we need to discuss how we plan to calibrate this thing" were... let's call them impressive. I don't think any other person on that project knew what a "traceable calibration" actually was.

It will probably not surprise you to learn that that project did not reach the finish line, at least not with my company.


Projects can be impossible with some environments, budgets, and teams.

Startup success rate is 1:22, and service companies survive 3+ years 6:1 against product companies... Thus, a hardware dependent launch has a 1:66 success rate over 3 years, and if people YOLO production it will go sideways for sure.

Best of luck =3




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: